AB277 adds Chapter 2.10 to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code and requires that any person who provides behavioral‑health treatment for a behavioral health center, facility, or program must undergo a fingerprint‑based background check under Penal Code section 11105.3 to identify and exclude individuals convicted of crimes involving a minor. The bill ties the covered activity to the definition of "behavioral health treatment" in Health and Safety Code §1374.73(c)(1) and exempts people who already hold a California professional license that included a fingerprint check and is in good standing.
This change creates a statutory screening obligation for behavioral‑health programs and will expand the set of entities and personnel eligible to receive state summary criminal history information. That triggers both operational compliance issues for providers and a state‑mandated local program determination with constitutional reimbursement language in Section 2 of the bill.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires fingerprint‑based checks via Penal Code §11105.3 for anyone delivering behavioral‑health treatment in a covered center, facility, or program, to surface convictions involving minors and permit exclusion. It inserts new Chapter 2.10 (starting at §18980) into Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code.
Who It Affects
Directly affects staff and contractors in behavioral‑health centers, facilities, and programs who are not already screened through a state license process; it also affects employers, human resources departments, and county behavioral‑health agencies that operate or contract with these programs.
Why It Matters
By making state DOJ summary criminal history checks routine for behavioral‑health workers, the bill alters hiring workflows, increases access to criminal history data for more public and private programs, and raises immediate operational questions about data handling, costs, and the scope of disqualifying offenses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB277 creates a clear, targeted screening mandate: anyone who provides behavioral‑health treatment in a behavioral health center, facility, or program must undergo the fingerprint‑based background check procedure set out in Penal Code §11105.3. The bill does not attempt to recast behavioral‑health licensing; instead it relies on the existing statutory definition of "behavioral health treatment" in Health and Safety Code §1374.73(c)(1) to identify who falls within the rule.
The screening’s stated purpose is narrow — to identify and exclude people with convictions involving a minor.
The bill builds in a single exemption: if an individual already holds a California state professional license that required fingerprinting during the license process and that license remains in good standing, the new requirement does not apply. The text does not specify how frequently checks must be repeated, which body bears the operational costs, or whether existing employer background‑check policies satisfied by non‑fingerprint methods remain sufficient.Because the statutory mechanism points employers to Penal Code §11105.3, the background information involved will generally be state summary criminal history supplied by the Department of Justice.
That raises two practical issues the bill leaves to implementation: first, who within an organization is authorized to request and receive that sensitive information; second, how programs will document exclusion decisions and offer any appeal or reassessment process for applicants or employees with disqualifying convictions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires fingerprint‑based background checks under Penal Code §11105.3 for any person providing behavioral‑health treatment as defined in Health and Safety Code §1374.73(c)(1).
Section 18980(a) limits the screening goal to identifying and excluding persons convicted of crimes "involving a minor" rather than a broader set of offenses.
Section 18980(b) exempts individuals who hold a California state license that included a fingerprint background check and is in good standing.
By expanding who may obtain state summary criminal history information, the bill creates a state‑mandated local program; Section 2 addresses reimbursement by invoking Article XIII B, §6 and related Government Code provisions.
The bill does not set timing/frequency for rechecks, define which specific convictions qualify as "involving a minor," or specify who pays for and processes the checks — implementation questions left to regulators and employers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Placement and scope—new chapter for behavioral‑health screening
The bill inserts a new Chapter 2.10 into Division 8, which signals a standalone statutory construct for background checks tied to behavioral‑health settings. That placement matters because it subjects these screening rules to the broader administrative framework and enforcement mechanisms that apply to Division 8 activities. It also makes the requirement readily discoverable by licensing and enforcement agencies that regulate facilities and programs under Business and Professions Code authorities.
Mandatory fingerprint checks via Penal Code §11105.3
This subsection requires that any person who provides behavioral‑health treatment undergo the fingerprint‑based background check procedure described in Penal Code §11105.3. Practically, that means programs must obtain state summary criminal history from the Department of Justice and use it to identify convictions that involve minors; the bill’s language centers on exclusion rather than nuanced risk assessment or rehabilitation timelines. The reliance on §11105.3 also imports DOJ administrative rules on request procedures, fees, and the form of records returned.
Licensure exemption for those already fingerprinted
The statute carves out a single exception for individuals whose California professional license already included fingerprinting and remains in good standing. The exemption reduces duplicate checks for many licensed clinicians (for example, licensed clinical social workers or psychologists), but the bill does not define "good standing" or list which licenses qualify, leaving room for interpretation by licensing boards and employers about whether a given credential satisfies the exemption.
Reimbursement and state‑mandated local program language
Section 2 invokes Article XIII B, §6 of the California Constitution and related Government Code provisions to state that no state reimbursement is required because the act affects criminal statutes or definitions. The bill’s digest also asserts that expanding access to state summary criminal history information creates a state‑mandated local program. This legal framing matters to counties and local agencies because it signals that costs or penalties tied to criminal disclosure provisions may fall on them unless otherwise funded.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Minors and their parents/guardians — narrower risk pool for individuals with convictions involving minors and an added layer of screening where minors receive behavioral care.
- Behavioral‑health programs that serve youth — clearer statutory authority to screen staff and defend hiring decisions when concerns about past offenses arise.
- Regulatory and licensing entities — the law creates a statutory backstop that can be used in oversight, investigations, or corrective actions when staff with disqualifying histories are discovered.
Who Bears the Cost
- Behavioral‑health employers and programs — must implement fingerprinting workflows, pay DOJ fees (absent other funding), and manage hiring delays and records retention.
- Counties and local behavioral‑health agencies that operate or contract with affected programs — increased administrative and compliance burdens and potential exposure to state‑mandated local program costs.
- Human resources and legal teams — new compliance rules, secure handling of DOJ summary criminal history, and potential litigation or appeal management for exclusion decisions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension pits protecting children by broadening fingerprint‑based screening against the practical consequences of stricter screening: administrative costs, potential delays in hiring critical behavioral‑health staff, and a thinner workforce—especially in systems already facing staffing shortages—and increased privacy and data‑management burdens without clear funding or procedural guardrails.
The bill answers one question — require a fingerprint check — but leaves many operational decisions unstated. It does not define the timing of checks (upon hire only, upon placement, or periodically), the thresholds for disqualification beyond the broad phrase "involving a minor," or any process for candidates to contest a record or seek individualized assessment.
Those gaps will force employers and counties to create policies that can vary widely, producing inconsistent outcomes across programs.
Relying on Penal Code §11105.3 brings DOJ summary criminal history into more hands, which increases the risk surface for improper disclosure and heightens privacy compliance obligations. The legislative digest’s note that the bill expands the scope of certain criminal disclosure statutes suggests a legal ripple: more entities will be authorized to receive sensitive records, but the bill does not clarify who within an organization may access those records or how they must be stored and purged.
Finally, the constitutional reimbursement carve‑out shifts the fiscal calculus: local governments may need to absorb implementation costs or seek contract adjustments with providers, despite the bill’s safety rationale.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.